~ Bewildering Broodings and Babblings on Ancient China

Wuwei 無為 and Ziran 自然

I’m currently working a new blog-essay on the similarities and differences between the Laozi and Zhuangzi, continuing my exploration of something called “Classical Daoism.” But today I just got on a stream-of-consciousness kind of role on Wuwei and Ziran and decided to post it. It is not my final word on the subject.

Wuwei 無為 is a very thick concept, with Wei 為 being a significantly polysemic character. With Wei as “to do” or “to act,” the Laozi provides instruction on a way of doing or acting, one that appears to not be doing or acting at all. Credit was given to Heaven and Earth (or the Dao) for both the conditions and energy for life on Earth. But, as anyone can see, they are not doing or acting in the normal sense of that word. We should not picture an entity “Heaven” personally infusing life somehow into each and every living thing, even though a heavy use of metaphors for this are used (e.g., the “Maker of Things” in the Zhuangzi); and we should not imagine the physical Earth personally fashioning tools, homes, food, etc. for us. We know that somehow, something from above causes growth in plants and something, somehow, from below, both supports everything and nourishes the plants, (with water also being very important). This “doing” or “action” is mysterious; unseen and unheard. It is thus “spiritual,” deriving from the fact that early humans could not help but feel that all actions or developments are caused or performed by someone, by some agent or entity. If we cannot detect them, they are spirits (Shen 神). The Chinese (among others) conceived of two related types of spirits: human ancestors and deities of the natural world (in particular, notable features of the natural world, such as impressive mountains, rivers and the soil). Sacrifices and honour were given to these spirits, with genuine gratitude for what is given and a hope for appeasement (lest they punish the people, for some reason, in some way).

The Laozi appears to be the earliest writing that contains the word Ziran 自然, “so of itself,” meaning, that something happens or develops naturally and spontaneously: it has no apparent cause. Although the text contains passages that accept the existence of ancestral and nature spirits, they are not given credit for much of significance. The spirits of nature are just one more animate part of the world that share the powers and constraints of Nature; Heaven and Earth, the Dao. So, while being perhaps more powerful than human beings, they must “obey the same laws” of the universe that humans do. Ziran, and Wuwei, were thus concepts that replaced the reference to spirits as the way certain things happen or are caused, especially when things go well. If a ruler of a country could attain Wuwei or Ziran, his people would operate in a self-sufficient and effective way, finding all of their needs met but completely unaware of any influence from the ruler above. This was how the ruler effected changes in his realm: they occur of themselves (Ziran), or Zihua 自化, “self-transformation.” In the Huainanzi, the same notion is described as Shenhua 神化, “spirit transformation,” or rather, transformations that are caused by unseen and mysterious forces.

Wang Chong 王充 was greatly impressed with the Laozi’s “cosmological” explanation, and adopted the two terms Wuwei and Ziran from that text. (He wrote a number of very clarifying expositions in the Lunheng 論衡 in the later Han Dynasty.) See here: Lunheng by Forke

For humans to attempt to imitate the Dao, to conform to the Way of Heaven and Earth, their “doings” and ‘actions” should resemble the way that Nature does them: naturally, without preconceived purposes, without apparent effort (especially mental effort). Why humans might want to model themselves on (the ways of) the Earth, the (ways of the) Heavens: the Way (Dao), is because of our desire to be efficacious, as I prefer to put it. We want to be successful in whatever we do, whether that is planting and harvesting crops, building a shelter, or maintaining our health (maintaining our mental health seems to me to have been the primary goal of what we consider Daoism, with physical health second, and societal or community health third). The Great Yu was credited for successfully controlling a massive flood in antiquity, and it was said he achieved it by adapting himself to the “way of water.” Modeling Nature was an “effective” or “good” (Shan 善) way to live and do things.

How do we imitate the Dao and “Wuwei?” Is not purposely trying to be Wuwei, the polar opposite to Wuwei? Is this not simply Wei? Indeed it is, but, just like we can purposely learn to walk, talk, ride a horse or even calm ourselves down, (at least sometimes), it can be done. The way it is done is both similar to and different from the way to do some other things. The Laozi suggests that we can Wuwei by reducing both the number of things we’re doing and the thoughts and desires to do them. There is some initial concentration; but, what needs to be done, what action needs to be taken, what words (if any) need to be said and what developments need to occur simply happen naturally, of themselves (Ziran). For example, as toddlers we purposely and with great effort try to keep our balance and learn to walk: this is Wei activity. But over time, with practice, it becomes so easy and feels so natural that we could literally do it in our sleep. Maintaining our balance and walking occur spontaneously (Ziran): that would be Wuwei activity.

The early “Daoists” noticed that a relatively calm mind was essential to efficacy and Wuwei activity: it was difficult to do if one’s mind was agitated; perhaps filled with emotions, desires, thoughts, plans; by being too self-conscious or obsessed with a self-serving agenda. As a result, they wrote often about the benefits of reducing our self-consciousness, or becoming “selfless,” and maintaining an “inner peace.” Although very “New Agey” sounding, this captures the meaning adequately. Anything that could point to this was utilized by the many contributors to the “Daoist” texts. Thus, they discussed the equanimity of water, the (stereotyped) humble, gentle, passive and quiet woman in society, (or infant), and perhaps the vast expanse of the heavens, with unlimited “breathing room,” so to speak, with utmost freedom and with nothing needing to be done.

A few passages in the Zhuangzi illustrate that while one may not be able to control the transformations (or malformations) of one’s physical body, one does have the ability to control how one deals with them, and this, we can presume, is what really “matters.” We can still enjoy life despite mental or physical pain. Of course, this psychological well-being will be more difficult and/or short-lived if we are careless with our body and we suffer illness and die. Thus, we are well-advised to try to maintain its health (and there are many practices to do this, both simple and complex) and not to put ourselves in positions where our lives are in jeopardy, if we can help it. (This seems to be an idea that Yang Zhu 楊朱 voiced publically in the Warring States period, and which contributors to the Laozi and Zhuangzi adopted).

The end, for now.

Comments, questions welcome.Thanks for reading

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

18 thoughts on “Wuwei 無為 and Ziran 自然”

Of all the many glosses for Wei I found the most informative to be “act” with the thespian implication, to act from a script, to per-form or act “through a form”. Wu wei then is unscripted behavior. You don’t know how it’s going to turn out.
Unless I misunderstand it, I think I have to take issue with Ziran implying “no apparent cause.” No problem, though, with “happens or develops naturally and spontaneously”

I like “unscripted behavior.” You didn’t say what your issue is with “no apparent cause,” but I will say that the word “apparent” is essential to what I’m trying to say. In the modern world we now understand the causes of a great many things that the ancients simply could not (e.g., we know the causes of the weather, have microscopes, telescopes, etc.).

I have read of a dialogue between a Daoist and Buddhist many centuries ago where the Buddhist understandably rejected the notion of Ziran. (I think it’s in W.T. Chan’s Sourcebook of Chinese Philosophy.)

Causal paradigms tend to be practically compelling, for me, for many reasons.

However difficult it may be to carve blocks and round corners without there being a cause, it occurs to me how streams may be said to contribute to, or give rise to, or birth a river, without a sense of them causing the river to be. They make them in that dao. The Maker of All might streams into mind as well. Landscape often induces a course of flowing, without intention.
Dao tends not to be imbued with coarse power. To dao tends to be mysteriously subtle. A wu-xin knowing perhaps.

Wu-ming ties into an untangle tango too.

As an antidote, one may dao consciously after a fashion, when an imbalance is perceived.
When in balance, dao tends to be taken for granted, unseen behind all scenes, dao stages.

Moving into and out of the wings, consciousness flowers.
Opening and closing acts.

Great musings Scott! Regarding comments on causality I’d like to add my two cents. We have to remember cause and effect is just a mental model, which represents reality, and it is a little too simplistic to even do that good of a job. I find it practical mind you but limiting if we hold too firmly to where we make a mental incision in reality. Really, life is a continuum made up of expressing relationships. Not one causes the other in a linear sense but everything is an expression of it’s relationship with everything else.

re; ” In the modern world we now understand the causes of a great many things that the ancients simply could not” I think it is useful to reflect that we still do not know any fundamental causes. What, for example causes gravity? Uncover one mystery and another one is found below it.

Thanks Raymond. (And Mark, above). Obviously, we homo sapiens are novice students of the universe. As for gravity, it is “simply” a function of geometry: things follow the path of least resistence: an apple falling from a tree is moving “downhill” in spacetime, thanks to the mass of the Earth. 😉

Yes to some that is one plausible approach Scott. Other philosophers and scientists say that the fundamental problem remains: Why does gravity work the way it does?

Sir Martin Rees, one of the world’s most renown cosmologists, had an interview in San Francisco with a science writer who appeared to be an atheist. The interviewer was suggesting that with modern scientific discoveries there was no longer any need for religion:

Interviewer:
“What people once ascribed to theologians is now something that cosmologists are treating as a laboratory subject.”

Sir Martin Rees:
“…When I’m asked about the implications of modern cosmology for theology, I give what is actually a rather dull answer. I say the implications are actually no different than from the implications of science in Newton’s day…. We can trace the causal system further back…to the first second of the Big Bang. But conceptually we’re in no better shape. At some stage we have to say things are as they are because they were as they were. The barrier has moved, but it’s no different in principle from in Newton’s day. We always have an interface with what we cannot understand.”

Now I don’t think religion is the answer either. Just saying the world’s working is no less a fundamental mystery than it was in the daoists day.

Re: Rees: “We can trace the causal system further back…to the first second of the Big Bang. But conceptually we’re in no better shape. At some stage we have to say things are as they are because they were as they were.”

— Indeed. I was wondering if what’s what you were pointing to. I can agree with your “the world’s working is no less a fundamental mystery than it was in the daoists day,” though I cannot if we remove the word “fundamental.” To return to the topic at hand, my discussion of the apparent necessity of imagining spirits to be the causes of illness, the weather, the celestial movements, etc. was to suggest the innovation of the “Daoists” conception of Ziran, which I’m pretty sure you understood.

The Chan (Zen) master Shen Hui 神會 once explained that “in the Ziran of Daoism, ‘Dao produced the One. The One produced the two. The two produced the three. And the three produced the ten thousand things.’ From the One on down, all the rest are Ziran.” and again says “It is due to their stupid mistake that (Buddhist) monks set up causation but not ziran, and it is due to their (stupid) mistake that Daoist priests only set up ziran but not causation … in the case of the causation of Daoists … all are produced because of Dao. Of there were no Dao, nothing will be produced. Thus all things belong to causation.” (Wing-tsit Chan, A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy, 1963, p. 443-4)
— Not mentioned here is Laozi 25’s 道法自然: Dao emulates Ziran, or Dao’s standard is Ziran. This is a bit ambiguous, but one interpretation would be that even Dao does not initiate things. If this is correct, it would seem to have been a minority view. Although perhaps only because it is difficult to imagine the universe without an ultimate cause, and the Dao, as that Way that existed even prior to the universe (Heaven and Earth) was the most suitable.

Another interesting aspect of ziran is that it is presented as an all-encompassing natural phenomenon and yet the human apparently can violate it. And so it is ziran to violate ziran. The solution, I think, is to say that the notion of ziran is “pointing to the moon.” Which is to say, pointing to an idea that can’t be put into a completely coherent intellectual conception.

Are you suggesting that when we do not act spontaneously we are doing so spontaneously? I don’t know if that makes sense, or is possible. I will agree that we are treading in increasingly muddy waters here.

Very muddy. What does not make sense is the classical daoists appear to claim that all activity under heaven happens ziran, and yet they also imply that the human often acts against ziran. Or we might say, it is natural to act unnatural, since every action is a natural phenomenon.

Raymond, you write “It seems so. Seems that zi ran subsumes all other activity.” and quote Laozi 25:
人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然。
This is open to interpretation. Technically, the text does not say 人法自然, although I would suggest that the authors prescribe this. Zhuangzi does in chapter 5: “always rely on what comes naturally and do not embellish life” (常因自然而不益生也), which, as you have said, shows that it is possible, perhaps even normal for huam beings to not 因自然.

We might wonder what 人法地 actually entails, and whether that inevitably entails 自然.

You said ” not to put ourselves in positions where our lives are in jeopardy, if we can help it. ” I am interested in your opinion in the Egyptian hot air balloon tragedy. Would you ever go into a hot air balloon? If according to Lao Tzu,盖闻善执生者，陵行不避兕虎，入军不披甲兵，兕无所投其角，虎无所措其爪，兵无所容其刃。夫何故哉？以其无死地焉,
Would this means it’s really decided?

As you have said, Wu Wei is thick. It can be interpreted into so many ways. My 7 year old son said to me out of the blue:”Daddy, I don’t think one can do nothing”. In his little logical mind, he is quite right. A true state of meditation can actually be defined as do nothing. That is, if one can answer “NO” to every definition of his current state, he fulfils the definition of Wu Wei.
Zi Ran is the result of Wu Wei. It is impossible to do things without a purpose, but it is possible to do things without attachment, without the “me” in the doing. A devout Christian said to me everything he does is for the glory of God, in a sense, he had reached the state of Wu Wei, albeit not intentionally, but that doesn’t really matter.

Quote from the Tao Te Ching: [If a ruler of a country could attain Wuwei or Ziran, his people would operate in a self-sufficient and effective way, finding all of their needs met but completely unaware of any influence from the ruler above. This was how the ruler effected changes in his realm: they occur of themselves (Ziran), or Zihua 自化, “self-transformation.” ]

Scott,

“wu wei(無為) is 不妄為 which means no hasty action.
Wu wei is also include all the meanings below:
1. being natural
2. no abusive action
3. no interruption
4. let it be
5. Let Nature take its course
6. be neutual
7. leave it alone
8. Let it happen be itself

If humans build a dam on a river to interrupt the water flow, then, it is considered not to be wu wei. It is because the action was interfering the course of nature. The definition of wu wei is not to interfere with Nature but let Nature take its course. Any interference or interruption of any kind is considered not to be we wei.

From the above quote, it was Laozi’s example to show a ruler should handle the people. It is by issuing less decrees and let people learn among themselves to be self-sufficient without the intervention. The ruler just leave the people alone and offer help only as necessary. It may sound like it was being Zihua 自化, “self-transformation.” However, I don’t think that Zihua 自化, here means “self-transformation.” I believe that Zihua 自化, in Laozi’s philosophy, means self-educated and learn from empirical experience. Thus self-transformation is the end result from the self-educated process to have a peaceful way of life.

Ziran 自然 is also the end result of Wu Wei. If one was being wu wei (the definitions above), then everything will be Ziran 自然.
Ziran 自然 is just a natural process to let things happen as the way they should in a spontaneous manner.

A better translation for Zihua 自化 is self-edified. The character 化 was understood short for the compound characters 教化, edify. Thus Zihua 自化 is self-edified. FYI This is how the Chinese language abbreviate a known term. In some cases, some characters may not be defined superficially.

Thanks for providing some feedback. I don’t really object to understanding zihua as “self-edified” or “self-educated.” That’s sort of how I understand “self-transformation.” Technically speaking, hua 化 by itself isn’t an abbreviation of the compound term jiaohua 教化, because jiaohua appears in no text prior to the Laozi. It is well-known that compound terms appeared later than single character terms.